E-mail List Archives
Thread: Text That Looks Like A Link
Number of posts in this thread: 12 (In chronological order)
From: Jim Homme
Date: Tue, Mar 14 2023 1:31PM
Subject: Text That Looks Like A Link
No previous message | Next message →
Hi,
Inside an app I'm testing with a sighted partner is a piece of text that looks like a web link, but is blue and underlined text. Would this fail for Structure and Relationships? My co-worker clicked on it because it tricked them.
Thanks.
Jim
=========Jim Homme: He, Him, His
Senior Digital Accessibility Consultant
Bender Consulting Services
412-787-8567
https://www.benderconsult.com/
Help end the shame of the stigma of mental health disabilities. https://benderleadership.org/notashamed/
From: Laura Roberts
Date: Tue, Mar 14 2023 1:41PM
Subject: Re: Text That Looks Like A Link
← Previous message | Next message →
I don't believe this situation is exactly *required *in WCAG 1.3.1, but I
would tell the client this a fail for EVERYONE. It's the standard way of
conveying URLs so sighted users would also be confused by it. Especially
considering there are many alternative ways to emphasize text content.
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 3:31â¯PM Jim Homme < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi,
> Inside an app I'm testing with a sighted partner is a piece of text that
> looks like a web link, but is blue and underlined text. Would this fail for
> Structure and Relationships? My co-worker clicked on it because it tricked
> them.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jim
>
> =========> Jim Homme: He, Him, His
> Senior Digital Accessibility Consultant
> Bender Consulting Services
> 412-787-8567
> https://www.benderconsult.com/
> Help end the shame of the stigma of mental health disabilities.
> https://benderleadership.org/notashamed/
>
> > > > >
--
Best regards,
Laura Roberts
413-588-8422
From: glen walker
Date: Tue, Mar 14 2023 1:44PM
Subject: Re: Text That Looks Like A Link
← Previous message | Next message →
Plain text that is blue underlined and not a link would be a bad UX for
everyone since we've all been trained since the beginning of the internet
that underlined text is a link.
It's not a WCAG failure but is not a great experience for anyone either.
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 1:31â¯PM Jim Homme < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi,
> Inside an app I'm testing with a sighted partner is a piece of text that
> looks like a web link, but is blue and underlined text. Would this fail for
> Structure and Relationships? My co-worker clicked on it because it tricked
> them.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jim
>
> =========> Jim Homme: He, Him, His
> Senior Digital Accessibility Consultant
> Bender Consulting Services
> 412-787-8567
> https://www.benderconsult.com/
> Help end the shame of the stigma of mental health disabilities.
> https://benderleadership.org/notashamed/
>
> > > > >
From: glen walker
Date: Tue, Mar 14 2023 2:01PM
Subject: Re: Text That Looks Like A Link
← Previous message | Next message →
I forgot to mention that if the underlining conveys important information,
then I would fail that under 1.3.1 (but not specifically because it looks
like a link).
For example, if you had a list of vocabulary words and some of the words
were underlined because they are important, then there'd need to be a
"programmatic" way to convey that same information.
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 1:44â¯PM glen walker < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Plain text that is blue underlined and not a link would be a bad UX for
> everyone since we've all been trained since the beginning of the internet
> that underlined text is a link.
>
> It's not a WCAG failure but is not a great experience for anyone either.
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 1:31â¯PM Jim Homme < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> Inside an app I'm testing with a sighted partner is a piece of text that
>> looks like a web link, but is blue and underlined text. Would this fail for
>> Structure and Relationships? My co-worker clicked on it because it tricked
>> them.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>
From: Verena Lenes
Date: Thu, Mar 16 2023 2:50AM
Subject: Re: Text That Looks Like A Link
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Jim,
if there is text in the app that is underlined and is a link and there is also
text that is underlined that is not a link, then I fail this under 3.2.4
Consistent Identification.
As others mentioned: it's confusing and inconsistent to use underlines for both
links and emphasis. I'd be tempted to fail it even if the app doesn't have
underlined links, but so far I've only come across this on web pages which also
underline links.
Kind regards,
Verena
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
>> Von: "Jim Homme" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> An: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 14. März 2023 20:31:20
>> Betreff: [WebAIM] Text That Looks Like A Link
>
>> Hi,
>> Inside an app I'm testing with a sighted partner is a piece of text that looks
>> like a web link, but is blue and underlined text. Would this fail for Structure
>> and Relationships? My co-worker clicked on it because it tricked them.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> =========>> Jim Homme: He, Him, His
>> Senior Digital Accessibility Consultant
>> Bender Consulting Services
>> 412-787-8567
>> https://www.benderconsult.com/
>> Help end the shame of the stigma of mental health disabilities.
> > https://benderleadership.org/notashamed/
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Thu, Mar 16 2023 3:46AM
Subject: Re: Text That Looks Like A Link
← Previous message | Next message →
On 16/03/2023 08:50, Verena Lenes wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> if there is text in the app that is underlined and is a link and there is also
> text that is underlined that is not a link, then I fail this under 3.2.4
> Consistent Identification.
The SC title is perhaps misleading - it's not concerned with *visual*
consistency, but rather consistency in the accessible name primarily.
See
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/consistent-identification.html
This issue also arguably doesn't fail 1.3.1 Info and Relationships, as
it's kind of the opposite problem of what that SC tries to address (in
simple terms, 1.3.1 wants to make sure that meaning conveyed visually is
also present in a text or programmatic way for those who can't perceive
the visual aspect. here, it's the opposite, as we're wanting to say "as
this isn't a link, it shouldn't be given this particular confusing
visual styling that makes it appear like a link", but that's not what
the SC covers).
I may be wrong, but this is one of those classic cases where there is no
actual SC (certainly not at A/AA) that covers the problem specifically.
And as others mentioned, this is more of a "just bad design/UX" issue
that affects all users, not specifically users with disabilities
(paradoxically, SR users are less/not affected by this, since they won't
be confused by the inappropriate visual styling of these
non-links-that-look-like-links).
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
From: glen walker
Date: Thu, Mar 16 2023 11:12AM
Subject: Re: Text That Looks Like A Link
← Previous message | Next message →
Interesting. I'd never really considered "identifying" an element with
regards to 3.2.4 as being visual rather than as labeling (or the accessible
name), as Patrick pointed out. While the understanding section focuses on
the accessible name (whether a label or alt text), the actual guideline
does not specifically say that it's talking about the accessible name, only
that it's "identified" consistently.
2.5.3 Label in Name specifically says "name" (meaning accessible name) in
the guideline so if 3.2.4 really intended for the "identification" to be by
name, it seems like it would have said so. Now, 3.2.4 is WCAG 2.0 and
2.5.3 is WCAG 2.1 so perhaps things changed a bit between the two versions
and we learned to be a little more specific in the guideline wording.
Whatever the reason, I can see Verena's argument given the current
wording. Ideally, it shouldn't matter if this issue fails a specific
guideline or if it's just a bad UX. If you have underlined text that is
used for emphasis and similarly underlined text that is a link, it's a
problem that should be fixed. Having a WCAG failure behind it might give
it more "oomph" to get it fixed rather than "merely" a UX bug.
Back when I learned how to type, with a real typewriter and paper, pre- PC
and word processor days, I had to underline names of books or articles.
There wasn't an option for italics or different font families. Now that
computers have moved out of huge air conditioned rooms and into our
pockets, and we've all learned that underlining now means "link" instead of
"emphasis", I don't see any reason why underlining should be used for
anything but links. (Misspelled words in documents sort of use underlining
but it's typically a squiggly underline and not a straight underline.)
It's also interesting that the emphasis HTML element, <em>, defaults to
italic styling, not underlining. But I'm starting to digress from the
original topic.
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Thu, Mar 16 2023 3:06PM
Subject: Re: Text That Looks Like A Link
← Previous message | Next message →
On 16/03/2023 17:12, glen walker wrote:
> Interesting. I'd never really considered "identifying" an element with
> regards to 3.2.4 as being visual rather than as labeling (or the accessible
> name), as Patrick pointed out. While the understanding section focuses on
> the accessible name (whether a label or alt text), the actual guideline
> does not specifically say that it's talking about the accessible name, only
> that it's "identified" consistently.
But if you read through the understanding document, and the examples,
there is zero mention of visual/presentational consistency. It focuses
on labelling/naming.
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
From: glen walker
Date: Thu, Mar 16 2023 7:28PM
Subject: Re: Text That Looks Like A Link
← Previous message | Next message →
Yes, I get that, but it's not normative. I think Verena's idea was
creative. I'm not sure I would go that route, but one could certainly argue
for it especially if one really needed a WCAG failure to give the bug a
higher priority.
But if you read through the understanding document, and the examples,
> there is zero mention of visual/presentational consistency. It focuses
> on labelling/naming.
>
>
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Thu, Mar 16 2023 7:31PM
Subject: Re: Text That Looks Like A Link
← Previous message | Next message →
inventively re-reading normative wording to squeeze out a WCAG failure that isn't one is...not advisable. but you do you...
> On 17 Mar 2023, at 01:29, glen walker < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Yes, I get that, but it's not normative. I think Verena's idea was
> creative. I'm not sure I would go that route, but one could certainly argue
> for it especially if one really needed a WCAG failure to give the bug a
> higher priority.
>
> But if you read through the understanding document, and the examples,
>> there is zero mention of visual/presentational consistency. It focuses
>> on labelling/naming.
>>
>>
> > > >
From: glen walker
Date: Thu, Mar 16 2023 10:37PM
Subject: Re: Text That Looks Like A Link
← Previous message | Next message →
> inventively re-reading normative wording to squeeze out a WCAG failure
> that isn't one is...not advisable. but you do you...
>
Me doing me would be "I'm not sure I would go that route", which sounds the
same as you saying it's "not advisable". Doesn't sound like we're
disagreeing in that respect.
But I do disagree that it's inventively re-reading. The guideline says
"identified consistently" and not "named consistently". As mentioned
before, 2.5.3 specifically says "name" so if 3.2.4 really meant "named
consistently", it should have said so. There must have been a reason
"identified" was chosen over "named".
From: Kevin Prince
Date: Mon, Mar 20 2023 1:51PM
Subject: Re: Text That Looks Like A Link
← Previous message | No next message
Which is a huge gap in WCAG IMHO - visual consistency is an accessibility problem - think cognitive issues.
Kevin